berg80
Diamond Member
- Oct 28, 2017
- 25,071
- 21,040
- 2,320
......but wins the POT nomination?
New Disqualification Clause Case Filed Against Trump In Michigan
A good government group spearheading a national effort to bar Donald Trump from the election next year moved to remove him from the ballot in Michigan, citing the Constitution’s Disqualification Clause.
It’s the first such action in a major swing state from a group with the know-how and resources to present a legitimate argument.
The petition, filed in Michigan’s Court of Claims, asks the court to make a finding that Trump’s efforts to reverse his loss in the 2020 election render him ineligible for office under the Disqualification Clause. The group is also asking the court to block Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson (D) from placing Trump the Republican primary ballot.
Free Speech for People, the non-profit which filed the suit, asked the Minnesota Supreme Court earlier this month to ban Trump from the ballot there as well.
It’s part of a national strategy to use the 14th Amendment’s Reconstruction-era ban on those who engaged in insurrection from holding office to block Trump from the 2024 ballot. Free Speech for People and CREW are, so far, the two main groups undertaking the effort. CREW filed suit in state court in Colorado this month seeking the same outcome there.
New Disqualification Clause Case Filed Against Trump In Michigan
To be honest, I had lost track of how many states have suits to remove the Orange fraud from the ballot. So I Googled it.
www.washingtonexaminer.com
Despite what the headline says there are more than 6.
Perhaps the most salient question is what judicial body has jurisdiction over state ballots? Each state's Supreme Court or the SCOTUS. If the answer is the former, it's theoretically possible for Trump's name to be excluded from ballots in.......let's say a half dozen states.........but listed on the other 44. Obviously voters could write in his name but that does not address the complicated issue of his disqualification to be the prez in the aforementioned 6 states.
This..............
The Elections Clause is the primary source of constitutional authority to regulate elections for the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate. The Clause directs and empowers states to determine the “Times, Places, and Manner” of congressional elections, subject to Congress’s authority to “make or alter” state regulations. It grants each level of government the authority to enact a complete code for such elections, including rules concerning public notices, voter registration, voter protection, fraud prevention, vote counting, and determination of election results. Whenever a state enacts a law relating to a congressional election, it is exercising power under the Elections Clause; states do not have any inherent authority to enact such measures.
Although the Elections Clause makes states primarily responsible for regulating congressional elections, it vests ultimate power in Congress. Congress may pass federal laws regulating congressional elections that automatically displace (“preempt”) any contrary state statutes, or enact its own regulations concerning those aspects of elections that states may not have addressed. The Framers of the Constitution were concerned that states might establish unfair election procedures or attempt to undermine the national government by refusing to hold elections for Congress. They empowered Congress to step in and regulate such elections as a self-defense mechanism.
.........gives Congress ultimate control over congressional elections but does not mention elections for the prez and VP.
Any thoughts?
New Disqualification Clause Case Filed Against Trump In Michigan
A good government group spearheading a national effort to bar Donald Trump from the election next year moved to remove him from the ballot in Michigan, citing the Constitution’s Disqualification Clause.
It’s the first such action in a major swing state from a group with the know-how and resources to present a legitimate argument.
The petition, filed in Michigan’s Court of Claims, asks the court to make a finding that Trump’s efforts to reverse his loss in the 2020 election render him ineligible for office under the Disqualification Clause. The group is also asking the court to block Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson (D) from placing Trump the Republican primary ballot.
Free Speech for People, the non-profit which filed the suit, asked the Minnesota Supreme Court earlier this month to ban Trump from the ballot there as well.
It’s part of a national strategy to use the 14th Amendment’s Reconstruction-era ban on those who engaged in insurrection from holding office to block Trump from the 2024 ballot. Free Speech for People and CREW are, so far, the two main groups undertaking the effort. CREW filed suit in state court in Colorado this month seeking the same outcome there.
New Disqualification Clause Case Filed Against Trump In Michigan
To be honest, I had lost track of how many states have suits to remove the Orange fraud from the ballot. So I Googled it.
Six states facing push to keep Donald Trump off 2024 ballot
Six states facing push to keep Donald Trump off 2024 ballot - Washington Examiner
At least six states are facing pushes from both Democrats and conservatives who are seeking to keep former President Donald Trump from the 2024 ballot by disqualifying him under the 14th Amendment. Election officials in Alaska, Maryland, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Rhode Island all...
www.washingtonexaminer.com
Despite what the headline says there are more than 6.
Perhaps the most salient question is what judicial body has jurisdiction over state ballots? Each state's Supreme Court or the SCOTUS. If the answer is the former, it's theoretically possible for Trump's name to be excluded from ballots in.......let's say a half dozen states.........but listed on the other 44. Obviously voters could write in his name but that does not address the complicated issue of his disqualification to be the prez in the aforementioned 6 states.
This..............
The Elections Clause is the primary source of constitutional authority to regulate elections for the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate. The Clause directs and empowers states to determine the “Times, Places, and Manner” of congressional elections, subject to Congress’s authority to “make or alter” state regulations. It grants each level of government the authority to enact a complete code for such elections, including rules concerning public notices, voter registration, voter protection, fraud prevention, vote counting, and determination of election results. Whenever a state enacts a law relating to a congressional election, it is exercising power under the Elections Clause; states do not have any inherent authority to enact such measures.
Although the Elections Clause makes states primarily responsible for regulating congressional elections, it vests ultimate power in Congress. Congress may pass federal laws regulating congressional elections that automatically displace (“preempt”) any contrary state statutes, or enact its own regulations concerning those aspects of elections that states may not have addressed. The Framers of the Constitution were concerned that states might establish unfair election procedures or attempt to undermine the national government by refusing to hold elections for Congress. They empowered Congress to step in and regulate such elections as a self-defense mechanism.
Interpretation: Elections Clause | Constitution Center
Interpretations of Elections Clause by constitutional scholars
constitutioncenter.org
.........gives Congress ultimate control over congressional elections but does not mention elections for the prez and VP.
Any thoughts?
